New Appellate Division Decision – Warrantless Search New Jersey

On June 5, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, decided State of New Jersey v. Jakil J. Bryant, ___ N.J. Super ___ (App. Div. 2025), which held that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement did not apply to the search of a passenger’s backpack, and the State did not prove exigent circumstances to justify the immediate opening of the backpack secured in the police vehicle.

Facts and Procedural History of the Warrantless Search

The case arose from an early morning police encounter on February 23, 2022, in Highland Park, New Jersey. Officers responded to a BOLO (Be-On-The-Lookout) advisory for a white Toyota Camry and for defendant Jakil Bryant, a suspect in a recent firearm incident. Officers Sams and Garrity located the Camry legally parked with two sleeping occupants—Bryant in the driver’s seat and a female passenger.

The officers observed the female passenger carrying a backpack exit the vehicle, followed by Bryant, who fled the scene when the officers identified themselves. With weapons drawn, the officers placed the passenger in handcuffs, frisked her, and placed her in the back of the squad car solely because she had been in the vehicle. The passenger dropped her backpack onto the ground when she put her hands behind her bag to be handcuffed. The officers placed the seized backpack on the front seat in the squad car. The passenger “spontaneously” exclaimed that “[t]here’s something in [her] bag.” When asked what it was, she initially responded that she was “not sure what’s in it” and then said that it was “a weapon.” Without obtaining a warrant, the officers searched the backpack and discovered a firearm. The trial court denied Bryant’s motion to suppress and upheld the search under the automobile and exigent circumstances exceptions. Bryant appealed.

Appellate Division Grants Standing to Challenge Warrantless Search in New Jersey

The Appellate Division held that Bryant had automatic standing to challenge the search under the New Jersey Constitution, which provides broader protection than federal law. Because Bryant was charged with firearm possession—where possession is a critical element—he had a proprietary, possessory or participatory interest in the backpack’s contents sufficient to contest the warrantless search.

Automobile Exception Does Not Apply to Warrantless Search in New Jersey

The Appellate Division rejected the State’s argument that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement applied. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 (1925); State v. Cohen, 254 N.J. 308, 320 (2023). The court found that the backpack was not searched as part of the vehicle’s a pa was carried out of the car by the passenger before police engagement, and then dropped onto the ground. The court emphasized that the warrantless search was not related to the mobility of the vehicle and did not meet the required criteria under the automobile exception. The court set forth that “[n]o precedent in our state has extended the automobile exception to the warrantless searches of objects the police have not found in or removed from the automobile.”

Exigent Circumstances Exception Fails in Warrantless Search New Jersey Case

The Appellate Division also rejected the claim that exigent circumstances justified the immediate warrantless search. State v. Miranda, 253 N.J. 461, 480 (2023). At the time of the search, the backpack was secured in a locked police vehicle and separated from both the detained passenger and the fleeing Bryant. The court found no urgent threat to tofficer or public safety that would necessitate bypassing the warrant requirement under these facts.

Court Emphasizes Limits of Police Authority in Warrantless Search in New Jersey

The Appellate Division underscored that while police may have had legitimate safety concerns in this case, once the backpack was secured and the situation stabilized, there was no justification for an immediate, warrantless search. The court highlighted that other constitutional exceptions—such as consent or search incident to arrest—were not argued, and thus not applicable to justify the officers’ actions.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways from the Warrantless Search New Jersey Decision

The Appellate Division reversed the denial of the motion to suppress, vacated the conviction without prejudice, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The ruling reaffirms that warrantless searches of objects the police have not found in or removed from the automobile are not justified under the automobile exception and that exigent circumstances must be genuinely urgent and immediate. This decision strengthens New Jersey’s constitutional protections and limits when and how law enforcement can search private property without judicial authorization.

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.